BH Balanced Hackmons Suspects and Bans Thread

What I think people ignore about species spam is that using the same mon is only partially what causes problems.
That's what basically causes the problem because you have to guess what set it is every time.

The playstyle is still very viable because what makes species spam work (generally) is overloading the opponents stat boosting check and imposter and then sweeping with stat boosts. This strategy is still viable without species spam.
its rly not because the main factor of using species spam is surprising your opponent and killing their prankster mon or setup check. The strat wouldn't be no where near as good anymore.

The centerpiece of the strategy is not the fact that every mon is the same, it's the process of overloading checks and sweeping. This process isn't really possible without smash/glow/drum but it is with species clause
im sounding like a broken clock but the strategy of using the same mon is the suprise factor and also the 2nd thing you said. also why ban so many moves when they're only broken on a certain type of play style?

Also shell smash is usable outside of species spam and its no more competitive in that situation
tbh I haven't seen a good smash team that isn't species spam/hyper offense.

aaa fuck this quote bullshit
 
What are you talking about? You haven't seen a good boosting team that doesn't rely on species spam? Do you play the same game I do? Maybe a couple of 1900 replays will refresh your memory.

https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7balancedhackmons-567951792
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7balancedhackmons-567470584
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7balancedhackmons-654140630
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7balancedhackmons-554445454
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7balancedhackmons-525700392
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7balancedhackmons-939617703


Surprise factor is indeed a part of the strategy but contesting that surprise factor alone is what makes the strategy good is just:
1) blatantly wrong
2) Easily proved so by looking at the highest rated replays

All of these teams have the exact same things in common. They have a mon designed to remove opposing threats (Destiny bond or Innards out) they and they all have several smash/glow/drum or other setup mons. Once threats to the team are eliminated it becomes quite simple to boost up and sweep. Species spam is a bit of a tradeoff, you exchange raw power for uncertainty. A team with varied sweepers is usually far better at eliminating potential threats, but far worse at luring them out. Looking at the replays however, it seems that using varied sweepers is still an extremely viable strategy and has experienced notable success. Duckymomo peaked at 1940 with his team. Haylighter got to 1800 (for the CLC challenge) with his razzle dazzle team and Greenheroes got to mid 1800s with his. Looking through the top 50 highest rated replays I did not see a single instance of extreme species spam (>3 same mon) until I got to assist don. To my knowledge no player has ever gotten to 1800 with species spam. 1800 players have used species spam (Ruby Kitty, HL, Myself) but that was not what got them to that rank. Taking this into account it seems that species spam is indeed not the problem and boosting is.
 
Last edited:
What are you talking about? You haven't seen a good boosting team that doesn't rely on species spam? Do you play the same game I do? Maybe a couple of 1900 replays will refresh your memory.

https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7balancedhackmons-567951792
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7balancedhackmons-567470584
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7balancedhackmons-654140630
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7balancedhackmons-554445454
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7balancedhackmons-525700392
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7balancedhackmons-939617703


Surprise factor is indeed a part of the strategy but contesting that surprise factor alone is what makes the strategy good is just:
1) blatantly wrong
2) Easily proved so by looking at the highest rated replays

All of these teams have the exact same things in common. They have a mon designed to remove opposing threats (Destiny bond or Innards out) they and they all have several smash/glow/drum or other setup mons. Once threats to the team are eliminated it becomes quite simple to boost up and sweep. Species spam is a bit of a tradeoff, you exchange raw power for uncertainty. A team with varied sweepers is usually far better at eliminating potential threats, but far worse at luring them out. Looking at the replays however, it seems that using varied sweepers is still an extremely viable strategy and has experienced notable success. Duckymomo peaked at 1940 with his team. Haylighter got to 1800 (for the CLC challenge) with his razzle dazzle team and Greenheroes got to mid 1800s with his. Looking through the top 50 highest rated replays I did not see a single instance of extreme species spam (>3 same mon) until I got to assist don. To my knowledge no player has ever gotten to 1800 with species spam. 1800 players have used species spam (Ruby Kitty, HL, Myself) but that was not what got them to that rank. Taking this into account it seems that species spam is indeed not the problem and boosting is.
Hi,
When you post such wildly inaccurate posts like this and include replays from almost exclusively over 2 years ago, it not only invalidates your argument, but derails the thread as a whole. Please consider how relevant the information you are providing is to the argument you’re trying to make.

I’m not going to go super in depth on my opinion since I’m obviously not a BH main, but I do think that the issue of Species Clause isn’t my main focus with the current metagame and I think that issue mostly stems from Shell Smash being broken (also definitely disagree with pazza’s notion that Shell Smash is only broken on species spam). like a loser said, Shell Smash turns just about any Pokemon into a major threat and forces Prankster Haze and/or -atespeed on teams because as we’ve already explained, Unaware just doesn’t cut most of the time it in a metagame with moldy moves. I do also want to echo that Shed should be included in this poll since it very much needs to be looked into.

Anyways this post was moreso to ward off any future posts that aim to derail the thread so don’t take my opinion on what should be suspected too seriously.
 
While the replays are old and some of the mons used in the replays are banned (innards chan, pdon,ray, and contrary) I do not think that switching out those mons with a currently playable counterpart would make that much of a difference (with the exception of innards chan which was significantly better than bond users). For example, contrary y could be switched for tint y, belly drum don could be switched for belly drum chomp/mmx, haylighter's ray could be switched with nekrozma. Obviously these aren't as optimal as the original sets but I doubt that it would hurt the team that much. And considering the fact that all of these teams got to at least mid ~1850s, a small reduction in efficacy will still leave them formidable.

Obviously I would rather use current replays but seeing as the only high ladder people that are active are Loser, El Mustacho, kitty, darkrayD, Motherlove and I it is almost impossible to find current relevant replays (seeing as none of us main spam). The ladder was simply much more active a couple years ago and aside from a few bans (which for the most part are replaceable with contemporary mons), the rules of the game where the same. I see no reason to assume that those teams will not function well with the changes I described.

There are no contemporary examples because the three players I listed replays for do not play anymore. The playstyle isn't common on the ladder now, but that doesn't mean that the potential for this playstyle still doesn't exist. We shouldn't make ban decisions based on what is used at this very second, but rather by what is inherently the most uncompetitive. Just because it isn't as common as species spam currently doesn't mean it's inherently "not as good."

In all the replays I listed stat spam was the main focus of the team, not the mons/abilities that have been banned. This tells me that changing out these mons will not create a large change in the efficacy of these teams. If I absolutely have to, I will use all three of those teams with the suggested changes to see the contemporary "ladder rank" of these teams.
 
Last edited:
Wow.

Okay, so can we just decide what suspect we specifically need to narrow down?

With people saying species spam, others saying smash spam, and with others saying both.

E4 Flint why not just have a vote?

1). Suspect Shell Smash
2). Suspect Shell Smash + Belly Drum + Tail Glow
3). Suspect Species Spam
4). Suspect All of the Above
5). Suspect Shell Smash + Species Spam only

I don’t view Tail Glow as a problem, and I don’t think Shell Smash is a problem.

I would vote for 3). Just because the glitch universally makes it uncompetitive bc it takes the skill out of Teambuilding and forces the opponent to have to rely on luck, hoping you land the right move based on predication, similar to evasion causes someone to rely on luck due to landing a move with iffy accuracy.

It’s not the game’s fault, just the simulator’s coding.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I've ever posted here, but I'd like to say some stuff regarding Shell Smash and the current meta. Shell Smash is such an abusable move, and almost any mon with decent stats can run it to become a sweeper. Combo that with dazzling or simple or mold breaker, or unburden (for impoproof), or use Moongeist Beam or Sunsteel Strike or Photon Geyser and you can effectively check more than 2/3 of the meta. Many of the bans that have led up to this have further increased the viability of Shell Smash: removing CFZ's and Water Bubble meant the meta now had to set up (lol) to sweep teams. Removal of Innards Out meant that a suicide mon to stop a sweep is harder to pull off. Re-adding sleep clause just made teams with one Smash user run two or three, if that was your check to it. Banning Contrary ended a safe and effective way to set up while doing damage. Even banning Mega Ray meant that teams lost one of the best alternatives to Shell Smash with Triage Oblivion Wing. It's hard to go two games on the ladder without seeing Shell Smash pop up.

Comparison to Belly Drum: Speed is what matters here. The boost in speed means that a Choice Scarf won't be able to stop a sweep, and the opponent won't be at 50%.

Comparison to Tail Glow: One of the main users of Tail Glow has been banned altogether. Shell Smash gives the sweeper more speed, while only slightly lowering offensive capability in comparison.



On a different note I despise Anchor Shot and think it is one of the most uncompetitive and unfun moves in the meta.
 

Gurpreet Patel (Sent you a Friend Request)

bh's very own pseudo-intellectual
is a Community Contributor
While the replays are old and some of the mons used in the replays are banned (innards chan, pdon,ray, and contrary) I do not think that switching out those mons with a currently playable counterpart would make that much of a difference (with the exception of innards chan which was significantly better than bond users). For example, contrary y could be switched for tint y, belly drum don could be switched for belly drum chomp/mmx, haylighter's ray could be switched with nekrozma. Obviously these aren't as optimal as the original sets but I doubt that it would hurt the team that much. And considering the fact that all of these teams got to at least mid ~1850s, a small reduction in efficacy will still leave them formidable.
saying the metagame hasn't changed significantly after 2 years and several bans has to be one of the dumbest takes i have ever seen.

was everyone complaining about mray and shed and species spam back in 2017? are people succeeding in ompl 7 with the exact same team structures that worked in ompl 5? no, because the two metagames are different almost to the point of being unrecognizable as the same format. every single ban has an extreme effect on the metagame and affects how good/broken other things are. if your argument is that smash in contrary meta, let alone in 2017, is the same as smash right now, i really don't see how i can take it seriously.
Obviously I would rather use current replays but seeing as the only high ladder people that are active are Loser, El Mustacho, kitty, darkrayD, Motherlove and I it is almost impossible to find current relevant replays (seeing as none of us main spam).
use spam then. one of the best ways to convince people that something should be banned is to beat everyone with it. saying that "no one good uses it so no current replays" is both irresponsible and arbitrary.
We shouldn't make ban decisions based on what is used at this very second, but rather by what is inherently the most uncompetitive. Just because it isn't as common as species spam currently doesn't mean it's inherently "not as good."
do we ban metronome and acupressure then just for their potential to be uncompetitive, even if no one is actually losing to these moves? all these points seem to be rooted in theory rather than practice, and i think it really hurts the overall case.
Many of the bans that have led up to this have further increased the viability of Shell Smash: removing CFZ's and Water Bubble meant the meta now had to set up (lol) to sweep teams. Removal of Innards Out meant that a suicide mon to stop a sweep is harder to pull off. Re-adding sleep clause just made teams with one Smash user run two or three, if that was your check to it. Banning Contrary ended a safe and effective way to set up while doing damage. Even banning Mega Ray meant that teams lost one of the best alternatives to Shell Smash with Triage Oblivion Wing.
this looks at smash the wrong way. for example, banning contrary did in fact make smash better, because it removed an alternative setup option so mons were forced to rely on smash. but smash's actual viability dropped because of prank haze becoming a universal stop to it. it's harder to cheese with offense now than it has ever been before.
 
saying the metagame hasn't changed significantly after 2 years and several bans has to be one of the dumbest takes i have ever seen.

was everyone complaining about mray and shed and species spam back in 2017? are people succeeding in ompl 7 with the exact same team structures that worked in ompl 5? no, because the two metagames are different almost to the point of being unrecognizable as the same format. every single ban has an extreme effect on the metagame and affects how good/broken other things are. if your argument is that smash in contrary meta, let alone in 2017, is the same as smash right now, i really don't see how i can take it seriously.

use spam then. one of the best ways to convince people that something should be banned is to beat everyone with it. saying that "no one good uses it so no current replays" is both irresponsible and arbitrary.

do we ban metronome and acupressure then just for their potential to be uncompetitive, even if no one is actually losing to these moves? all these points seem to be rooted in theory rather than practice, and i think it really hurts the overall case.

this looks at smash the wrong way. for example, banning contrary did in fact make smash better, because it removed an alternative setup option so mons were forced to rely on smash. but smash's actual viability dropped because of prank haze becoming a universal stop to it. it's harder to cheese with offense now than it has ever been before.
The issue with Prank Haze remains with priority. Look at Triage for Tail Glow, and Smash on Mega Ray gave it Drain Punch with Registeel.

What is stopping Belly Drum Heracross with Triage? Giratina with Haze Prankster is about it, except for Unaware (but which user?)

Belly Drum Heracross-Mega can use Normalium-Z, and with that it can use Belly Drum to KO Registeel with Prankster, then Leech Life can KO Prankster Zygarde-Complete with minor chip (95% max damage), while Horn Leech can handle Diancie-Mega to out priority it, Drain Punch can handle Kyurem-Black.

Ghosts and Flying types work well, but their resist is only cutting it in half. Plus most BH-relevant Flying types are neutral to Fighting.

I don’t think Haze is enough, I think we need a better way to handle Belly Drum + priority, as most Unaware users are Dark, except Zygarde-Complete and Audino-Mega - So Leech/Drain Punch are a threat.

——————
I agree Prankster Haze is the best answer, but it’s flaws are paramount.
 
Can we bring back certain aspects of gameplay that were banned before instead of looking for the next thing to be banned?
We already tried!


...in all seriousness, if you want to go through that angle you have about a month and a half to pick one thing, or a few related things, that are banned, make a post explaining why you think it should be unbanned, rally sufficient support to get to a vote, get a suspect test, do the suspect test, do the suspect vote, and then actually play the meta with the thing unbanned. Good luck!

...honestly though, if we don't have a suspect test start within the next week, maybe two, then we'd either need an abridged testing/voting process or we might as well not bother. SwSh is right around the corner and is likely to make all these discussions null and void, one way or the other. ...although for those seeking filibuster as their anti-ban strategy, that'll be a good thing for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OM!
We already tried!


...in all seriousness, if you want to go through that angle you have about a month and a half to pick one thing, or a few related things, that are banned, make a post explaining why you think it should be unbanned, rally sufficient support to get to a vote, get a suspect test, do the suspect test, do the suspect vote, and then actually play the meta with the thing unbanned. Good luck!

...honestly though, if we don't have a suspect test start within the next week, maybe two, then we'd either need an abridged testing/voting process or we might as well not bother. SwSh is right around the corner and is likely to make all these discussions null and void, one way or the other. ...although for those seeking filibuster as their anti-ban strategy, that'll be a good thing for them.
While I don’t support a suspect or a ban, I will encourage a final decision to be made by those seeking one.

At this point let’s pick one thing and stick to it.

After seeing all of the arguments on what should be banned, (Species, Shell Smash... Shedinja! etc.) I think there is just enough time for one last Suspect.

Let’s make the choice now.

I feel, of those mentioned, Shell Smash has warranted the most discussion, and often times is paired with Species Spam anyways, so killing off Shell Smash mitigates Species Spam to a pretty significant degree.

Again, I won’t vote for a ban on either - but I support people’s right to suspect, and feel the arguing should focus on just agreeing on one suspect and getting it started.

I am not going to filibuster - even when it benefits my stance on a suspect.

Instead of Back and Forth, let’s just pick the direction we want to go in - 1 final suspect determined and started.

The Gen may end, but it will still be played, yet the threads will be dead here.

Deciding policy now likely affects it for generations to come... I doubt people will allow suspects or un-bans, on old generations unless a previously unknown or ill coded game mechanic was found or fixed (like Species spam listing over 4 moves).

Also: Gen 7 in a Nutshell
 
Last edited:

E4 Flint

-inactive in BH due corrupt leader-
is a member of the Site Staffis a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderator
Community Leader
Looks like we’ve reached a natural conclusion to the discussion. I think I am correct if I think about launching a suspect poll to determine the next subject sometime this weekend with the following options:
  • Shell Smash (with a sub-poll of including Belly Drum)
  • Species Clause (extremely likely it’ll be the normal species clause that the rest of the sim has)
  • Other (something else, or nothing else)
Feel free to post your opinions on the poll or the options themselves.
 
Looks like we’ve reached a natural conclusion to the discussion. I think I am correct if I think about launching a suspect poll to determine the next subject sometime this weekend with the following options:
  • Shell Smash (with a sub-poll of including Belly Drum)
  • Species Clause (extremely likely it’ll be the normal species clause that the rest of the sim has)
  • Other (something else, or nothing else)
Feel free to post your opinions on the poll or the options themselves.
If it helps for the “Other”, I would consider adding a Shell Smash + Species Clause option. I feel that oftentimes, if two opposing sides mutually have members that are willing to “unite and comprise for getting both” then that could likely achieve the most votes so no one feels ignored.

Afterall, if someone is for smash, and another for species decide to just vote to suspect both because more people might vote for that option, it could be useful. As I am sure many people already want both suspected, and so they will likely view getting something you want at a cost, is better than getting something you don’t want.
 
Honestly I still havent seen many terribly convincing arguments for smash. The arguments I remember seeing the most either mostly dealing in theory with lack of modern replays to back it up or from a player who tends to build fat which naturally struggles with smash. I haven't seen terribly good arguments against smash either, but you dont really need those when most of the pro ban ones arent good to begin with.
 
i used to feel that smash was banworthy, but since then the meta has shifted and my teambuilding (and everyone else’s for that matter) has gotten far better, so it feels way more reasonable to deal with. it’s obnoxious, but i don’t think it’s quite strong enough to justify a ban. banning shell smash would also be a massive blow to the viability of hyper offense, which i think would be a net negative for the metagame, having the big bad ho fun police around to keep dummy fat teams honest is a good thing. i’m completely on board with testing species clause.
 
A few thoughts on the Species Clause.

I think that the proposed clause outlined in the poll options is NOT what BH needs. I believe that some balance is needed in this area, mainly to limit the teams that use like 4+ of the same mon. I do not believe that double Chansey, MMY + MMX, or double MMX/MMY teams are inherently broken or uncompetitive.

A species clause that limits you to two mons with the same dex number seems much more reasonable for this meta. Some might say it is arbitrary to put two as the limit, but it makes sense for BH. Why does it make sense for BH? Because it is one of the few metas where you can use both MMX and MMY on the same team. On top of that, they generally have very different roles as well as different checks. It is also a meta that sees high usage of Chansey, but with multiple roles like Imposter, Fur Coat, or more niche options.

Sure, a team with double MMX will still be able to run a standard set + lure set (example being Adaptability + Pixilate), but I don't think this combination will be as effective without two or more MMX backing them up. While this still allows you to stack a threat, limiting the amount to two hampers the threats' unpredictability. Looking at the double MMX example, if you see this from team preview it is relatively safe to assume that one MMX is fairly standard while the other is some type of lure. Various forms of scouting are available to help you figure out which MMX is which.

This can be said for other threats as well, like Mega Gengar or Mega Diancie. Seeing two of either at team preview tells you they are either running duplicate sets (which I don't recommend doing) or that they are running a standard set + a lure or niche set. Sure, you might fall for the lure set first and open up a weakness to the other threat, but that's the point of lures and I don't find lures uncompetitive.

This wouldn't be a perfect solution, but I think it would help alleviate some of the troubles that species spam teams have been causing while also not eliminating a method of teambuilding that is not unhealthy. Sure, this modified clause would still allow for a team structure like two MMX + two Mega Gengar, but this is certainly not the most effective way of teambuilding. I'd like to see what some of the voters in favor of the species clause think about this.
 

E4 Flint

-inactive in BH due corrupt leader-
is a member of the Site Staffis a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderator
Community Leader
A few thoughts on the Species Clause.

I think that the proposed clause outlined in the poll options is NOT what BH needs. I believe that some balance is needed in this area, mainly to limit the teams that use like 4+ of the same mon. I do not believe that double Chansey, MMY + MMX, or double MMX/MMY teams are inherently broken or uncompetitive.

A species clause that limits you to two mons with the same dex number seems much more reasonable for this meta. Some might say it is arbitrary to put two as the limit, but it makes sense for BH. Why does it make sense for BH? Because it is one of the few metas where you can use both MMX and MMY on the same team. On top of that, they generally have very different roles as well as different checks. It is also a meta that sees high usage of Chansey, but with multiple roles like Imposter, Fur Coat, or more niche options.

Sure, a team with double MMX will still be able to run a standard set + lure set (example being Adaptability + Pixilate), but I don't think this combination will be as effective without two or more MMX backing them up. While this still allows you to stack a threat, limiting the amount to two hampers the threats' unpredictability. Looking at the double MMX example, if you see this from team preview it is relatively safe to assume that one MMX is fairly standard while the other is some type of lure. Various forms of scouting are available to help you figure out which MMX is which.

This can be said for other threats as well, like Mega Gengar or Mega Diancie. Seeing two of either at team preview tells you they are either running duplicate sets (which I don't recommend doing) or that they are running a standard set + a lure or niche set. Sure, you might fall for the lure set first and open up a weakness to the other threat, but that's the point of lures and I don't find lures uncompetitive.

This wouldn't be a perfect solution, but I think it would help alleviate some of the troubles that species spam teams have been causing while also not eliminating a method of teambuilding that is not unhealthy. Sure, this modified clause would still allow for a team structure like two MMX + two Mega Gengar, but this is certainly not the most effective way of teambuilding. I'd like to see what some of the voters in favor of the species clause think about this.
I agree with your points and personally also brought this up as a good potential solution on discord. My issue before with it was that I found assigning a specific number usually arbitrary (one reason I am planning on ridding the ability clause next gen) but here we have some specific reasons to make use of 2, and it also helps the scouting problem unless both of the mons have extremely similar movesets, which I think should be perfectly reasonable to handle. The problem is more of an external OM issue where we’re trying not to go “too far” in what our clauses are doing when the rest of the sim uses something else. The Immortal can possibly provide some further insight on the situation.
 

The Immortal

They Don't Want None
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
Other Metas Leader
Like we’ve said before, a limit of anything other than one is outside the norm. We want to remain in line with the general standards and fixing Ability Clause will be a step in that direction, whereas a custom Species Clause is a step backwards.

That said, I have come up with an alternate clause: Forme Clause. With the way BH works in regards to Formes being legal turn 1, such a Clause would make sense for this meta. And it does not have to arbitrarily be limited to 2 but can follow the standard usage of clauses where the limit is 1. Thus, Forme Clause would be defined as “Only one of the same Pokémon Forme can be used”. I believe this Forme Clause tackles the same concerns the proposed 2 Species Clause did.
 
A few thoughts on the Species Clause.

I think that the proposed clause outlined in the poll options is NOT what BH needs. I believe that some balance is needed in this area, mainly to limit the teams that use like 4+ of the same mon. I do not believe that double Chansey, MMY + MMX, or double MMX/MMY teams are inherently broken or uncompetitive.

A species clause that limits you to two mons with the same dex number seems much more reasonable for this meta. Some might say it is arbitrary to put two as the limit, but it makes sense for BH. Why does it make sense for BH? Because it is one of the few metas where you can use both MMX and MMY on the same team. On top of that, they generally have very different roles as well as different checks. It is also a meta that sees high usage of Chansey, but with multiple roles like Imposter, Fur Coat, or more niche options.

Sure, a team with double MMX will still be able to run a standard set + lure set (example being Adaptability + Pixilate), but I don't think this combination will be as effective without two or more MMX backing them up. While this still allows you to stack a threat, limiting the amount to two hampers the threats' unpredictability. Looking at the double MMX example, if you see this from team preview it is relatively safe to assume that one MMX is fairly standard while the other is some type of lure. Various forms of scouting are available to help you figure out which MMX is which.

This can be said for other threats as well, like Mega Gengar or Mega Diancie. Seeing two of either at team preview tells you they are either running duplicate sets (which I don't recommend doing) or that they are running a standard set + a lure or niche set. Sure, you might fall for the lure set first and open up a weakness to the other threat, but that's the point of lures and I don't find lures uncompetitive.

This wouldn't be a perfect solution, but I think it would help alleviate some of the troubles that species spam teams have been causing while also not eliminating a method of teambuilding that is not unhealthy. Sure, this modified clause would still allow for a team structure like two MMX + two Mega Gengar, but this is certainly not the most effective way of teambuilding. I'd like to see what some of the voters in favor of the species clause think about this.
This is an option on the poll, it’s “Other”.

I basically said having 2 Pokemon as a limit a while back, (yours is based on Pokedex #, mine is based on form, such as 2 MMX & 2 MMY, not just the Pokedex #) and using a single shiny of the two keeps the coding from overlapping Movesets.

Anyways, your idea is close enough to what I wanted and I’ll change my vote from No Ban, to “2 x Species with what a loser said.”

But honestly, I do feel using a Shiny check allows people to not have the move stacking issue, and it won’t obligate a MMX + MMY limit.

——————

EDIT: For some reason it didn’t show E4 Flint or the The Immortal posts until now.

The Immortal are we changing the Species Clause poll option to a Forme Clause?

^ Your reply will impact the voting poll itself.

Beyond Mewtwo (MMX + MMY), and Necrozma (Dusk-Mane + Necromoza-Ultra), Kyurem (B+W), Deoxys (Attack + Speed), and niche offensive Aegislash & Giratina forms, what else is meta relevant?

Can’t people just use the different forms of some Pokemon, without type/ability/base stat changes?

Look at Magearna’s other form (only an aesthetic change), Arceus, etc? Different Arceus Formes without the Plate/Multi-type are still the same Pokemon... and type.

Even if it’s based on Multi-type, if you have an Arceus Normal-type without Multi-type (for ability clause), and an additional Arceus with Plate+Multi-type (a literal Forme change), does that count?

See? Now we need complex bans even for your proposed Forme Clause, as people can have multiples of the same Pokemon only different in appearance.

Your idea needs to cover these bases too.

Also for Gen 8, with the 1 Ability Clause, do we need to count all -ates and Galvanize as an ability because having Refrigerate + Pixelate, etc. with 1 ability limits on defensive abilities, like Soundproof, Regenerator, etc. available will be an eventual concern.

I guess I’ll maintain my vote, for now, as do nothing then. Until the Species Vs Forme clause is finalized.

Lastly, since Gen 8 will ban Mega Stones, and Z-move Crystals (No Necrozma-Ultra), that means Mewtwo, Charizard, and Necromoza will no longer be a Species / Forme clause concern for Sword and Shield.

Kyurem-B+W might be the only BH actual Relevant beneficiary, barring Gen 8 additions.*

*I don’t believe people typically use them on the same team, but just the most likely Pokemon reason to keep it Forme Clause over Species Clause in Gen 8.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 2)

Top